The root of insecurity

Posted on by
1

How much damage is caused by insecure leaders?

So many behaviors in leaders can be traced back to a basic insecurity and the leader’s attempts to compensate for it. As I mentioned in my last post, Chip Ingram says there are weak and strong responses—an idea he credits to an out-of-print book by a Swiss Christian psychologist, Paul Tournier: The Strong and the Weak.

I’m not a psychologist, but let me try to use Tournier’s and Ingram’s thoughts to trace a few of the manifestations back to this core weakness. Rather than point at current-day figures, I’m going to draw on Scriptural examples and let you apply them to what you see in the world around you, whether it’s celebrities, political leaders or supervisors in your organization. Or in yourself.

Strong responses

Some cloak themselves by “powering up”:

  • Putting enormous effort into their appearance
  • Having an excessive need to count—how big their church is, how many people report to them, or how fast they’re growing
  • Gathering status symbols like cars, electronics or a network
  • Flashing wealth in various ways, including name dropping
  • Taking credit and seeking acclaim
  • Bragging and demonstrating arrogance
  • Aggression and intimidation through anger, threats, blaming and creating power imbalances
  • Other forms of attempts to control, such as manipulation and passive aggressiveness

A few Biblical examples stand out for me.

  1. Ahab is an abusive king featured in 1 Kings 17-22 who, along with his wife Jezebel, kills the Lord’s prophets and leads the nation into sin. But there’s one moment when Ahab opens up about his deep insecurity. When Naboth stands up to him and doesn’t let him push him aside, the king sulks and stops eating (1 Ki 21:4-6). Only Jezebel sees his vulnerable state and steps in with a brutal display of authority that keeps the mask intact for those under their thumb.
  2. In Isaiah 22:15-23, God calls out Shebna, King Hezekiah’s palace administrator, for his flashy chariot and for the tomb he’s building for himself. Was he insecure? He was an outsider, a foreigner appointed to a high position of leadership, and one possible meaning of his name is “uncertain” (Biblegateway Encyclopedia of the Bible). It seems likely that he tried to cover his imposter syndrome by projecting his status and through a clumsy attempt to leave a legacy.
  3. When we first learn of King Saul, he downplays his status (1 Samuel 9:19-10:1) and then hides in the baggage to avoid appointment as king (1 Sam 10:20-24). His insecurity presents as humility, but we soon discover a leader who has a weakness for people pleasing (1 Sam 15:24-30) and feels threatened when another is celebrated (1 Sam 18:7-9). His jealousy leads him to a vindictive hunt to kill David, his protege, and slaughters priests when they help him. 
  4. Jacob always comes in second place. He is a twin who fights unsuccessfully with his brother to get out of the womb first and then misses out on the favor of his father (Gen 25:22-28). His desire for approval leads to an over-competitive disposition and a lifelong tendency toward manipulation and deceit. He tricks his favored brother out of his firstborn birthright (Gen 25:29-34) and blessing (Gen 27), he bests his uncle in a battle of deceit (Gen 29-31), and he even wrestles with God (Gen 32:22-32). While his family members are all impacted by his actions, the worst thing is that he sets the stage for an entire nation (Gen 25:23, Gen 32:28, Gen 37, Hosea 12) who will wrestle with God.
  5. In the New Testament, King Herod demonstrates a similar pattern of jealous abuse of power as he tries to kill the newborn Messiah (Matthew 2:13-16). And Pontius Pilate demonstrates indecisiveness and fear of the people (Mark 15:1-15) that leads him to give in to crucifying the Messiah.

With those examples in mind, can you spot similar tendencies in some current-day leaders?

Weak responses

There is another, opposite way of cloaking insecurity, with so-called “weak responses”:

  • Presenting extreme humility, over-apologizing or perhaps demonstrating a victim mentality to gain sympathy
  • Withdrawing and pursuing isolation to avoid potential rejection, perhaps avoiding people or eye contact
  • Protective or superficial responses, to dodge introspection or disclosure
  • Defensiveness or avoiding feedback mechanisms
  • Deflection of any hint of depth through humor or sarcasm, or dismissing compliments
  • People-pleasing in a desire for validation or to avoid upsetting others. In leadership, this can come out in deferral of decisions or difficult conversations.

While there are plenty of examples in Scripture, this blog is focusing on those in leadership. Here are some examples from the Bible:

  1. Twice Abraham tells self-protective half truths to save himself, putting his wife Sarai in a risky position (Gen 12:10-20, 20:1-18). While he could rationalize his actions, because he had married his half sister, his actions undermine his credibility, cause his wife harm and bring plagues against innocent rulers of other nations.
  2. After Moses fails in his first attempt at leadership, he isolates himself in the wilderness—for 40 years!—leading sheep instead of people (Ex 2:11-15,3:1). When God calls him to a place of prominent leadership, he fights and fights that calling with multiple arguments, self-deprecating beliefs and even begging (Ex 3:11-4:13).
  3. Moses’ brother Aaron caves in to the demands of the people when his brother disappears for 40 days on Mount Sinai (Ex 32). He lets the people break loose, creates a golden idol that leads them to sin and abdicates responsibility when confronted with his role (Ex 32:21-25). His actions lead to a brutal punishment against the people he had been responsible for.
  4. Jephthah was a man forced into exile by his family because of his illegitimate birth until they needed a warrior to lead them as judge (Judges 11:1-11). His guarded response and negotiations for guarantees are understandable in light of his background, but his leadership is derailed by his rash vow even after the Spirit of the Lord came upon him (11:29-35). It reads like a clumsy attempt to negotiate with or even manipulate God. His six years as a judge are marked by internal wars.
  5. I could also mention Jeremiah, who told God all the reasons he couldn’t use him (Jeremiah 1:4-10), and Barak, who wouldn’t lead the people without help from courageous women (Judges 4:6-10).

Tournier says the goal of either strong or weak responses is to maintain distance or create a false image so no one will know who I really am. I need to keep people away because, “If you ever knew who I was, you wouldn’t like me.”

If we were all truly honest, how many of you readers and those you lead have this basic core belief? We all need to deal with the root of insecurity before it causes deep hurt.

This post is getting a bit long, so I’m going to split it. In my next post I’ll approach the question, if everyone is insecure, what can we do about it?

Inadequate, insecure and in charge

Posted on by
2

For all my readers who are aspiring to high levels of leadership, I want to pull back the curtain and expose one of the biggest secrets about leaders. I share this, not to deflate high potential leaders, but to hopefully make the path more approachable.

In the eleven years I served as president of an organization, I regularly kept in mind an acronym I picked up over the years from a few different leaders. WIDIRIC stands for Woefully Inadequate, Desperately Insecure and Ridiculously in Charge. 

Woefully Inadequate

These thoughts come from Scottish pastor Alistair Begg, who gave a presentation at the Christian Leadership Alliance conference more than fifteen years ago. While I couldn’t find that presentation, I found another similar one on YouTube: Inadequacy: The Surprising Secret to Being Useful to God. 

None of us are equal to the task of leadership. Begg points out the amazing number of times the apostle Paul picks up this theme throughout his two letters to the Corinthian church. It’s clear Paul believed the secret to usefulness in ministry cannot be traced to any natural competence. It is only in leaning into our weakness and inadequacy that we find God’s strength (2 Cor 12:9-10), receive the Lord’s commendation (2 Cor 10:12,17-18), and see God produce results we couldn’t achieve on our own (1 Cor 3:6-8).

In those eleven years, I was constantly reminded of the irony that God chose a monolingual graphic designer to run a Bible translation organization. I have three letters after my name, but they aren’t much help in this organization: BFA. In half the situations I faced as president, I didn’t really know what to do. I constantly wondered whether I made the right choice, wore the right clothes, said the right things. 

And yet, I had a strong conviction that God had called me to, led me to and prepared me for this role. Realizing that I wasn’t sufficient in myself (2 Cor 3:4-6), I leaned into my collaborative style, surrounding myself with people who were smarter and more specialized than I was and fashioning a leadership team approach. I tried to approach leadership with a learning posture and dependence on God. Sure, he did use many of my strengths, but I was constantly aware that it was his power working through me that was my real hope of effectiveness. 

Desperately Insecure

This idea comes from American pastor and teacher Chip Ingram. You can read or listen to more of his thoughts at Everyone is Desperately Insecure.

Everyone is insecure, but some are better at masking it than others. Ingram says insecurity manifests in many different ways. Some withdraw and create distance from others, while some power up, boasting and intimidating others. All are ways to cover up or pull away out of fear of being unloveable or unworthy. “Strong responses” are probably more obvious in leadership positions, because people mistake bragging, testosterone and intimidation for leadership. But “weak responses,” such as defensiveness, deflection and people pleasing, are just as common.

Ingram tells the story of how, shortly after he launched his radio ministry, he was invited to attend an event sponsored by the National Religious Broadcasters in the US. He found himself in a room of Christian celebrities. With sweaty palms and heart racing, feeling completely out of place, he skipped the small talk and went straight over to his seat. 

To make things worse, he found out he was seated next to Chuck Swindoll. He said, “Picture how intimidating it would be to sit next to one of your heroes in a room full of ‘spiritual giants’ and you are the new kid on the block.” But after a few minutes, Ingram took a huge risk. He turned to Swindoll, introduced himself and confessed, “I’m real new to all of this. I’m really out of my league here, I don’t know what I’m doing and this is a very threatening environment. Do you think you could give me a few tips on how to handle myself and what to do?” Swindoll shocked him by admitting he felt the same way. In fact, he pointed out that most people in the room felt insecure as well. He took Ingram under his wing, and thirty years later, they’re still friends.

My natural tendency is not to open up about my insecurity, but hide it with an image of calm, unshakeable confidence. While I can demonstrate vulnerability, I curate my public admissions carefully while opening my indecision and doubts to very few, trusted confidants. It’s helpful to me to realize I have solidarity in my insecurity, which helps me see past the masks of others I am prone to compare myself with. In fact, I think insecurity is one of the most common weaknesses in leaders, and it’s likely the source of a lot of wounds leaders have inflicted on others.

Ingram points out that the way to defuse insecurity is by admitting it and refusing to play the game. He says the key is authenticity. The Bible is full of examples where God calls insecure people to leadership. One of my favorites is Gideon, who was completely open with God, revealing that he saw himself as the weakest link in a weak clan (Judges 6:14-16, my version). God then teaches him through a series of tests, and then a miraculous victory. His vulnerability made his example far more relevant to all of us millennia later. I’ll discuss some of other Biblical examples in my next post.

God can redeem that insecurity when we put down our fig leaves before God and others. Then do the deep soul work of understanding our security as children of God who are loved and accepted just as we are. And finally, step out in faith to follow God’s call with your meager offerings.

Ridiculously in Charge

Dr. Henry Cloud unpacks this idea in his book, Margins for Leaders, but you can find a shorter synopsis of this particular point here: Are You Ridiculously in Charge as a Leader?

In spite of all the flaws, the leader is “ridiculously in charge,” as Henry Cloud puts it. There are no excuses or blame shifting for the leader of an organization, company or church—nor for leaders at all levels. Everything in your arena of responsibility, no matter its size, happens either because you caused it or because you allowed it to happen. 

If you want a certain culture, you can create it while not tolerating undesirable actions or attitudes. If you want certain results, you can build a competent team of staff to accomplish it while holding everyone accountable to make sure it’s not undermined. 

As Moses learned from his father-in-law in Exodus 18, the larger the arena of responsibility, the more shared leadership is required. This increases complexity and requires techniques for delegating responsibilities and knowing what’s going on under your leadership. But it doesn’t change the fact that a leader owns everything: a team success, a failed initiative or a staff member acting alone. 

One way to take this phrase is that he or she is “totally” in charge. But Cloud’s memorable phrasing reminds me that, however I might feel about the absurdity of my appointment to the position and my suitability and qualification for the job, I need to own the fact God has placed me here. 

WIDIRIC

This acronym is a constant reminder that, like any humans in roles of high responsibility, I am inadequate for the task in myself. Like all humans, I have to overcome my fears and fight the instincts to cover up my insecurities with unhealthy behaviors. And it’s a call to courageously step up and take the responsibility of leadership seriously (Rom 12:8 NLT). God is still calling people to ministry and leadership who feel unqualified, but are willing to give it their best shot and learn from their mistakes. God’s promise to Moses and Gideon was the same as it is for us: “I will be with you” (Exodus 3:12, Judges 6:16, Matthew 28:20). The best leaders learn how to depend on the Holy Spirit and the power of God to work in them and through them. 

It comes down to this: all of us have fears and failures to overcome. The gospel is the only real credential any of us has for ministry. It’s who God is, not who we are, that is the difference-maker.

Follow up blog posts:

  • The root of insecurity
  • If everyone is insecure, what can we do about it? (coming soon)
  • Inadequacy and the Peter principle (coming soon)

Celebrating a one-of-a-kind

Posted on by
Reply

I sometimes wonder if people suspect I married Becky just so I could gain her parents in the deal. They are one of the best gifts she ever gave me. My second father, Bill MacNabb, passed away last week, and I’ve struggled to articulate an appropriate tribute for him. I’m going to do it as a leadership tribute.

I think what most impressed me was Bill’s faith and humor through a life of storms that would have shaken anyone. He had a one-of-a-kind disease. For over thirty years his doctors tried on diagnosis after diagnosis, sometimes naming diseases that were usually found in women or only diagnosed at autopsy. One doctor ended up calling it “MacNabb’s Disease.” Turns out all the symptoms can be tied to Agent Orange exposure in the Vietnam War. He gave his life in service to his country. If his life had ended back then, however, he wouldn’t have enriched as many lives as he did.

While he grew up without a model for fatherhood, he became the loving, doting father to his girls that he never had himself. He put a lot of energy into creating games for them and forging a lifetime of deep memories. He made sure they knew they were loved. When his daughters each found their life partners, he adopted them as one of his own kids, once they attempted the impossible feat he designed as a test.

No one needed to follow Bill. He was a titled leader—a president, chairman of the board, an elder, and a patriarch of a growing clan—but he didn’t require a title to lead. He had the courage to forge a path when there wasn’t one blazed before. He was willing to do what he wanted to do even if no one followed. Yet I think you’ll see that many followed him.

Finding the humor

Most will remember my father-in-law for his humor, in spite of all his hardships. He joked even if no one got it, because he wanted to make himself laugh. He often cracked himself up, and even if those around him didn’t get it, his laughter was contagious.

When painting became an outlet during a season of brain-diseased-episodes, he created art that only a mother would love. Or only the artist could appreciate. His best friend told him, “Bill, you’re an artist in your own mind.” Bill compounded the joke by scribbling overpriced valuations on the back of his most ridiculous paintings. One Father’s Day years later, when he was in his right mind, we pulled out his art collection from the attic. He hadn’t seen many of these pieces in a long time, and as he saw them he began to laugh. Ugly laughing—tears streaming down his cheeks and his face frozen in a grimace as he struggled to breathe.

He was often willing to offer himself as the butt of his own jokes, like his tongue-in-cheek alter ego, “Mr. Fix It”—a willing hero who was always depicted applying the wrong tool for the job. He was equally willing to roast his brothers-in-law or send them a two-page invoice after their family enjoyed his hospitality. Or to sacrifice his sons-in-law for comedic purposes. As his first daughter was about to marry me, he said at the rehearsal dinner, “I don’t think of this as gaining a son. I think of it as losing my shirt.”

He was also an author in search of an audience. He wrote because he had to, even if few would ever read his work. His written correspondence with his father-in-law is epic, even if written for only one person. As a former journalist, he wanted to publish, and he achieved that goal in 2019 with a book of extremely limited run. It seems perfect that there’s only one copy of his book available on Amazon right now, and there seems to be a bit of price gouging in play. Perhaps they think the author’s death is going to drive up demand in the resale market. Bill would be the first to find the humor in that.

First followers

It’s easy to say a one-of-a-kind doesn’t need others, but that’s actually untrue. The first to follow someone are the ones who define that person as a leader. As John Maxwell once said, a leader with no followers is just taking a walk. Bill MacNabb could have just taken a walk out of step with everyone else, but something about him drew others to participate in his jokes, his writing and his artwork. He had a huge influence on all who knew him, and we wanted to walk at his pace. So let’s talk about his followers for a minute.

One way we participated was to provide an audience. We listened to Bill’s drafts or helped others realize when he was joking. He fed off the reactions to his dry wit or sarcasm. In one case, he concluded a eulogy for his best friend and walked away silently before returning to the microphone to say, “I usually get applause.” I can still see the funeral director shaking his head at the raucous response. Bill loved it when a message intended for one audience was unearthed. Such as a spoof video he created as sales manager for a heating and cooling company, when he explained how profit was lagging sales, and told customers, “If we had known you would have money left over at the end of the year, we wouldn’t have given you the prices we did.”

The audience also has a role to play. The greatest gift those around Bill could give him was to help him lift his jokes, his writing, his artwork to a level of absurdity. For instance, his kids created a local news video to showcase his journalistic ramblings after a tree exploded behind his house: “A tree explodes! News at 11!” Others created inspirational placemats featuring his Mr Fix It photo series. He knew he was loved when others laughed with him.

We further participate by preserving and celebrating Bill’s writings, artwork, jokes and stories. This week, his first followers have been mining his archives so we can share some of the best at the memorial service tomorrow.

Harnessing limitations

One of the things I’ll remember most about my father-in-law was the way his health-related limitations focused him. Rather than becoming a barrier, they helped him reprioritize. 

He proved able to change and grow, moving away from his workaholism of the years before I knew him to putting his people first throughout his presidency. Frankly, his limitations made him a great president and chairman. Bill was a humble servant leader who loved his company and every employee. He was also capable and competent, leading with wisdom and foresight. Most of his staff had no idea how often he used the couch in his office. If they only knew that his meetings and sales calls were often preceded by a daily ritual of reciting Psalms out loud on his commute so he would sound articulate by the time he walked in the doors. 

Retiring early upon his doctor’s advice gave him more time to focus on people. Bill was incredibly generous, participated in church stewardship campaigns, led the church’s Rock & Roll Evangelism Committee and spent time with his many grandkids—whether they were biological or lived on the street. He also got to know his neighbors during his frequent walks, sometimes taking breaks in front of their homes or dodging a thunder storm in their carports. He then included many of their stories in his second, self-published book. He and my mother-in-law helped build a remarkable community in their neighorhood: this week, there have been as many tears shed up and down his street as among his family.

To the very end, Bill never lost his sense of humor, and joked even when he could no longer speak. Even if he was in pain and visibly struggling with basic activities, if someone asked him how he was doing, his standard ironic response was, “Never had a bad day in my life.” His book title summarizes the reality. His life was lived boldly, with buckets of tears and pails of laughter.

Fashion the right people from the team you have now

Posted on by
Reply

We’re continuing the idea that the wrong people can become the right people within the right culture, so take a look back at my previous post for the introduction. Now I want to ideate around the how.

With passion and a bit of conviction, I started drafting this blog post, but I’ve wrestled with it for at least five years. My first question was whether these ideas could actually work. I haven’t been entirely successful with my efforts, but I have seen each of these methods work in at least one person or team I’ve led, so I’ll share from personal experience where possible. My second question was how to talk about these situations while still honoring the people I have worked with. I trust I’ve walked that wire appropriately. 

This post is a bit long, but I want to unpack some practical ways you can use to put this idea into practice.

1. Change the context, change the person

In Topgrading, Brad Smart offers a warning about recruiting a high performer from another company, because you’re extracting her from the team and context that made her successful. So doesn’t it stand to reason that some people might be viewed negatively or perform poorly because of the team, systems and environment they’re in? Change the circumstances, and you may get a very different result. Why couldn’t you build a winning team by intentionally developing a new context around some high-potential but underperforming team members? 

A number of years ago I took over a sales team like that. I could see their potential, and their frustration and discouragement. I was convinced that, with a bit of work to advocate for their concerns, introduce servant leadership, and get them supporting each other, they were capable of delivering fantastic results. I didn’t know their core business, so there was no danger of me telling them how to do their jobs. I simply changed their environment. I worked for them, and morale and teamwork improved dramatically. They had a record-setting year.

2. Trace systemic causes

As I’ve described in this blog before, I have my own experience with working in a challenging environment… and contributing to that environment. I don’t point fingers, because I became a poor follower and poor performer. But that experience didn’t prevent a senior leader from taking a risk on me. He saw enough to invite me to work for him. His example has shaped how I view staff. Ever since, I’ve kept an eye out for opportunities to pay it forward. 

Sometimes when I hear of an internal staff member whose career path is floundering after a poor annual review, I will still consider him for a transfer into an open role. There are pretty good cost reasons to retain existing staff rather than start fresh. Here’s what I look for:

  • I try to read between the lines to see potential, as this senior leader did with me. 
  • I look into the circumstances—reading subtext in the annual review or finding oblique ways to explore the candidate’s team—and try to determine what other factors might be at play. 
  • I look to see whether his resume shows examples of past success and what might have contributed to those successes.
  • I consider whether the good or bad results were in part a product of the team he was in, or the style of supervision, or his working environment. 

If the setting I can offer resembles the ones where he has thrived, can I accept the risks of it not working out? 

3. Look for aptitude and attitude

Someone who has gone through a difficult experience will obviously show grief, sadness and anger over the experience. Negative attitudes themselves are not necessarily a deal-killer, because the person may have reason for that negativity. Perhaps she has been silenced, or overlooked, or passed over, or had too many supervisor handoffs. Unless that negativity has metastasized into bitterness, she may be able to turn things around. 

The primary criterion is this: has this person owned her part in her failure and made it a learning opportunity? Indicators of ownership include a commitment to reflection, acceptance of blame and expressions of regret over personal actions. You should also look for signs of hope. In Creativity, Inc., Ed Catmull suggests a couple of indicators that a person can make the shift. With one influential staff member at Disney Animation, he looked for “intellectual curiosity and a willingness to remake [her unit] in a different image,” along with an ability to think in new ways about her job (p160). It took time, but she was able to turn the corner.

With evidence of indicators like those, I occasionally take a risk on someone that others have written off.

4. Signal a change

Culture is notoriously difficult to change. But sometimes it only takes a small catalyst to make a dramatic change. It’s like the characteristics of yeast; the Apostle Paul pointed out that a little affects the whole lump of dough (1 Cor 5:6, Gal 5:9). 

I heard a recent example about an employee-owned airline, with an incredible culture, that merged with another airline. They inadvertently introduced some cynical yeast. The new employees began openly questioning the motivations of the company’s leaders, and it soon infected everyone. Loud whisperers, those who tend toward suspicion, or those who repeat every negative thought can bring the team down. 

Let me also add prima donnas who deliver results but poison the culture by failing to see their success as a team effort and demanding exceptional treatment. I once heard Dave Ramsey share how he told his best salesman, “The next time you’re late to work, bring a box.” When the puzzled man asked why, he responded, “So you can pack up your desk.”

The good news is that it doesn’t take much to send a powerful signal to the rest of the team. I’ve seen the extra spring in a staff member’s step when I released a longtime staff member from the team—someone who had been a thorn in her side, who seemed to get away with bad behavior. This reckoning signaled a change. The fact is that if you keep someone who is flaunting the rules, you’re likely to lose someone you want to keep. 

5. Plant a catalyst

If one or two wrong people can ruin a team, could it work the other way? Bring in one or two staff who exemplify the desired values to try to influence the entire team. However, it would be easy to lose new staff to the dominant culture, so this path only works if you protect them. I’ve seen this happen with young leaders, when the president backed them and provided a direct line to bring him their frustrations. Your backing should be consistent, but it may also need to be conspicuous; you may need to offer both carrots and sticks to those who would hammer down the nail that stands up.

Remember that some leaders are less visible, influencing from the back. So either a positive catalyst or a bad apple might not be the most obvious, up-front staff. It might be far more effective to drive change obliquely through a back-row leader.

And here’s a radical thought: What if you could win over your biggest existing critic? When Catmull and Lasseter went to Disney Animation, they identified a few surprising catalysts within the existing team: an HR director “steeped in the old ways of doing things” (p160), the head of a competitive division set up to leverage Pixar’s intellectual property (p160) and two people who had been let go by the previous leader (p167). All four already had influence, and when they started supporting the new direction, there was instant credibility.

How many staff would it take to create a tipping point for change? McKinsey & Company says it can take as few as seven percent of a team to drive a change. I would posit that a few of the right people can hit above their weight in moving the rest of the team.

6. Create pairings

Like a wine or coffee, where the notes are drawn out by the right food pairing, people can draw out the best or worst in each other. It’s about matching. Catmull says, “Even the smartest people can form an ineffective team if they are mismatched. That means it is better to focus on how a team is performing, not on the talents of the individuals within it.” (p 53)

Don’t think melody, but harmony. Cultivate diversity of viewpoints, because the wider the range of skills, experience, perspective, the more effective the blend can be. Then balance tensions, not letting one viewpoint win out, but highlighting and managing differences and strong opinions. 

How do you find the pairings? Watch for unexpected symbiosis between individuals, or better results when certain people work together. You can also get to know your people and learn their strengths, weaknesses and biases. Where a weakness is identified, how can someone else’s strength, or a combination of strengths, compensate? If you don’t have that strength in your team, it might provide a focus for your next catalytic and strategic hire.

Conclusion

So did it work for Ed Catmull? Shortly after he brought in his values and systems and made a few strategic staffing decisions, the Disney Animation team began an improved trajectory that led to two #1 films: ”Tangled” (2010) and “Frozen” (2013). Rather than replace the existing staff to accomplish this success, Catmull proudly says the studio ‘was still populated by most of the same people John [Lasseter] and I had encountered when we arrived'” (p170).

People are not pawns to be moved around or downgraded. Do we believe in people? Do we love people enough to try to draw out their best and have patience with them as they adjust? Do we use failure as an opportunity for learning? And when people are not performing, do we try to change their setting to give them every chance of success before assuming we should let them go?

Let’s make this a conversation. Do you agree or disagree with this line of thinking? Leaders, what has worked or not worked for you as you shift an existing team?

The wrong people can become the right people

Posted on by
1

I’ve heard people casually refer to “the right people on the bus” who would never read Jim Collins’ book, Good to Great. While some have tried to discredit the book, Collins’ ideas have had enduring impact. This expression has made it into mainstream culture.

There’s certainly merit to the idea of having the right people. As I build teams, I regularly consider what seats best suit existing staff and imagine the kinds of people I might add to build out a high-performing team. I’ve had some success in my teambuilding efforts and have had the privilege of working with some amazing teams.

But let’s be realistic: many of those in lower levels of leadership don’t have much choice over who they have on their team. Those who lead churches likely find the idea of choosing your own deacons and elders laughable. And almost every leader inherits a team that someone else assembled.

As a leader who has led a lot of change initiatives, I can tell you it would sometimes be easier to start fresh. No doubt there’s a time to clean house and rebuild with new people. But for most of us, the ideas of Jack Eckert, which Brad Smart unpacks in Topgrading, are unlikely. In fact, they feel fundamentally wrong.

I’m a firm believer in people. I believe all people are made in the image of God, and therefore they are more than pawns to be moved around. I believe that environments either support people in becoming who God intended, or erode their opportunities for success. I believe that the same Holy Spirit in me is also in the Christians that I lead. And I believe in the transforming power of that Spirit. I believe these things enough that I’m willing to be punished for implementing them in my leadership. (If you didn’t catch that, it’s one of Patrick Lencioni’s indicators of a core value.)

So in this post I want to consider the idea that the wrong people can become the right people within the right culture. 

This provocative leadership concept comes from a surprising source: an unconventional corporate leader. Reading Ed Catmull’s Creativity, Inc. in 2015 inspired me. I wondered: if this people-first idea could be true for business, surely it should be even more true in ministry. If we really put people first, shouldn’t we give them every chance of becoming the right people? It’s much more difficult to shift a culture that’s in a downward spiral and a staff who seem to be contributing to that spiral. It certainly requires more of a leader.

Catmull’s conviction developed in 2006, when Disney acquired Pixar Animation and installed Pixar’s creative executives over Disney Animation. Catmull says he and John Lasseter discovered a group of very creative people who were demoralized after a lengthy string of second-rate films. Disney hadn’t had a hit in 16 years and the once-great studio had stagnated since losing its founder. The question for these executives was whether to let all the staff go and bring in their own people or work with the existing staff.

In a radical experiment, they chose to work with who they had.

Could disillusioned, negative, change-averse people become motivated staff members, full of energy and creativity? I’ll answer that question in my next post, and consider ways to implement this idea.

Other bulls to ride

Posted on by
6

“I have a feeling my career has just peaked.” I think a lot of first chair leaders feel the same as Colin Firth as he accepted the Best Actor Oscar for The King’s Speech in 2011. That’s why, in this final post in my series on exiting, I want to focus on the last part of this quote from Vineer Bhansali1:

“In bull-riding, once the eight seconds are up, there is no glory in staying on the bull… There will be other bulls to ride.”

The real goal of any bull rider is to ride again. He wants to walk away at the end of the day and get to compete next weekend.

But many leaders can’t help wondering, will there really be other bulls to ride? When leaders fall into the trap of thinking this is the only opportunity they’ll get, they’ll hold on too long. There are a number of fears that leaders face when they think about what’s next.

  • Fear they won’t get another opportunity. The fact is that, while you can prepare yourself for a CEO role, unless you “happened to have” the particular set of skills and experiences the board was looking for in a specific search process, you wouldn’t have been selected. So take confidence in the fact you were chosen, but recognize that a success in one CEO position does not necessarily mean you fit what another search team is looking for. It takes imagination and some humility to let go of the illusion that you are merely a CEO looking for a like-for-like position.
  • Feelings of inadequacy. Maybe there’s a bit of imposter syndrome, even after many years in the role. “If the board had only known… they would never have picked me.” One way this manifests is in an unshakable feeling that people give you attention because of your title, and people won’t love you if they don’t have a reason to. There’s also a sense of inadequacy around skills, because the top role requires a unique collection of general leadership skills, and line management requires a greater level of specialization and expertise. See The ladder for generalists for more on this subject.
  • Fear of irrelevance. Once you’re not in the first chair, you might miss:
    • being part of the inner circle
    • the idea of being needed2—perhaps the go-to fire fighter and problem solver
    • knowing everything that’s going on
    • the opportunities to leverage the position as a bully pulpit for speaking, for writing or advocating your favorite causes. 
  • Fear of loss. There are a lot of things to love about high level leadership, and some of them are addictive: power, attention, travel, accolades, achievement1, and that nicer desk, office or parking spot. They might be more challenging to walk away from than you would have admitted.

The issue of what’s next can be especially acute if an organization took the risk of appointing a young leader who still has some years left in his or her tank. You aren’t ready to retire, but you also don’t want to be that athlete who can never really discover who he is after his glory days ended with two-thirds of his life still remaining.

Leader, you need to hear this: You wouldn’t have gotten to the position you held if you didn’t have courage. You have overcome fears many times before, and you’ll need courage to face your exiting fears as well.

So let me try to present a few steps in your journey that might help you move ahead. 

1. Take time to grieve

You’re not wrong about some of your fears and the things you’ll miss. These losses are real, and require some time to grieve and adjust. You likely need some time off before starting into something else. You may also find that grieving and decompressing takes years. There are specialized resources available for leaders who are dismounting the bull.

2. Take time for reflection

In The Making of a Leader, Bobby Clinton3 says that phases of significant leadership maturity need to be followed by phases of life maturing. He encourages reflection to learn the lessons that spring out of a position of leadership: the mistakes he or she made, and lessons that can turn into a leadership philosophy. 

Then, before seeking a new position, do some self reflection around this question: Are you a leader in search of a team or cause to lead, or are you more committed to the cause than any particular role?

3. Bring that reflection and some imagination to your next role

There are a lot of other roles out there once you start looking for the next chapter in your career. Don’t think of this move as “downward;” some positions are more interesting, less stressful and more satisfying than the first chair role. You could consider a reset, such as a study program. Or you could leverage your experience with a lateral transfer to another organization or a mentoring/consulting role. You might return to a previous area of expertise or something you found enjoyable. Each option requires a mindset shift from the leader, and an organization willing to create the context to help you succeed. 

My next steps were driven first by my passion for the Bible translation and language ministry cause. I also had family considerations that required me to be a digital nomad, able to work from multiple locations. Choosing to focus has been the biggest challenge. The first chair leader gets involved in everything, and the variety and breadth can be addictive. Picking one area, or a small handful of areas to focus on, requires strong self awareness and discipline. But the first role you try doesn’t have to be permanent. I moved into one specialty that I’d enjoyed in my first-chair role, but I’ve now raised up a successor for my role and will be moving again to a new challenge.

As you consider the next bull to ride, here are some other questions to guide you.

  1. Can you get excited about another cause, and transfer your skills to leading in a different context?
  2. How will you adjust to working under a single supervisor, with less autonomy?
  3. Of all the things you engaged in, which ones gave you life and a sense of success, and which ones drained you? These are clues to help you pick a focus. 
  4. Did you see any squandered opportunities from your vantage point that might give you a specific challenge to dig into?
  5. As you imagine your next step, examine your motivations and your working style. What are you trying to escape and what conditions need to be in place to help you succeed?

Stepping out of the first chair doesn’t have to spell the end of your career, but it does require retooling and rethinking your attitude. Irving Berlin took a humorous view of this challenge in the movie White Christmas, when he penned the lyrics to, “What Can You Do With a General?”4 In spite of its age, I found it hit close enough to be poignant, but contained sufficient truth to be funny.

References:

  1. How To Ride A Bucking Bull: Stay Calm And Hang On…For Now, article by Vineer Bhansali, Forbes, Sep 19, 2018
  2. Skoog, Greer, and Doolittle. Lead with Prayer. Faith Words. 2024. p132.
  3. J. Robert Clinton. The Making of a Leader. NavPress. 1988.
  4. What Can You Do With a General?, from White Christmas (1954)

Leadership as bull riding series:

Unexpected faith

Posted on by
3

As I began to unpack in my last post, it’s easy to think that faith thrives when the environment shelters it. However, faith actually suffers when roots don’t need to run deep. There’s something about hostile or dry environments that draws out deep faith.

And when faith springs up and flowers in dark places, it shines even brighter. 

The Bible puts Sidon firmly in the “dark” category. The region became wealthy through the trading done by their sea merchants, and the triumvirate of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel all predict Sidon’s downfall for her sins against God (Is 23; Jer 25:15-22; Ez 28:20–24). But it turns out that the widow’s faith is not exceptional; it’s actually part of a pattern. 

First, Yahweh’s Temple is built with Sidonian cedar (1 Chron 22:4). How did that happen? While God intended for Joshua to drive out the peoples in modern-day Lebanon (Josh 13:6), the Sidonians were among those who remained as a thorn in Israel’s side (Judg 3:1-4). But when King David sets up a system of tribute and forced labor for many of these tenacious peoples, he instead works out a cooperative relationship with Sidon and Tyre. 1 Kings 5 records that the king of Tyre loves David so much that he willingly contributes huge amounts of cedar and woodworkers to build the Temple. 

Jumping to the New Testament, Jesus shames the Galileans by telling them that if Sidon had seen the miracles he performed among them, they would have repented quickly (Matt 11:21). Clearly he sees them as spiritually open and much more willing to accept his words than his own people are. Indeed Luke 6:17 notes that large numbers of people from Sidon come to hear him preach and be healed. 

Then in Mark 7:24-30 and Matthew 15:21-28, Jesus brings his disciples to the area for a retreat. They’ve been running flat out, and John the Baptist has been martyred. Jesus intends to give them a break in a resort town, but a local woman recognizes Jesus and pesters his disciples relentlessly about her daughter’s demonic possession. Jesus first puts her off by saying his primary mission is to Israel. But her tenacity, her submission and her scrappy logic impress him. Jesus responds, “Woman, you have great faith!” He then rewards this faith by healing her daughter. The receptivity of this audience seems to change Jesus’ priorities in the short term. The next thing Jesus does is head for the Gentile region east of the Sea of Galilee. In fact, Jesus never commends the faith of anyone in Israel, but only among foreigners (for instance, Matthew 8:10). 

So the Sidonian widow is not really an aberration. There are a number of reasons why this woman might find Israel’s God appealing:

  • Power: Baal, her people’s god of harvest, seems powerless to defeat Yahweh’s control over the rain.
  • Compassion: Israel’s God shows himself willing to hear the cry of widows and orphans, even foreign ones. As Exodus 22:21–23 says: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry.” 
  • Grace: She’s encountering grace on a daily basis. In spite of her sin, Elijah and his God are still providing for her rather than judging her.

There’s something about Sidon, this land in such close proximity to God’s people, struggling to hold onto its beliefs and stand against Israel’s religion. Spiritual sensitivity and hungry seekers keep popping up from that region throughout the Bible. Perhaps this is the ultimate answer to Jesus’ provocative question to the Jews: if there were lots of widows in Israel, why did God use a widow in Sidon? (Luke 4:25-26). 

But what if these aren’t one-off examples? What if the roots are connected? What if the widow is open to Yahweh because of David’s kindness to King Hiram? What if the woman with the demon-possessed daughter reaches out to Jesus because the story of that widow was embedded in her culture? A seed had been planted centuries before.

Something similar happened in Ethiopia. My wife Becky and I once had the opportunity to visit an Ethiopian Coptic Church in Israel. The priest we spoke with recalled the Church’s long history, pointing to a tapestry behind him depicting the Queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon (1 Ki 9). He then connected her story to a God-fearing Ethiopian who centuries later made his own pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Acts 8:26-40) and was baptized as a Jesus-follower. Both the Coptic Church and the Beta Israel community in that country have ancient roots.

In Wycliffe, we hear about these seeds all the time. Before a missionary sets out for the most distant place she can imagine, she needs to understand that God is there and working before she arrives. As I noted in my last post, there’s a second narrative: the purposes God is pursuing in the lives of the people before the missionary arrives. If you have any doubts, read Don Richardson’s 1981 classic, Eternity in Their Hearts. 

Faith can spring up in surprising contexts, standing out even more because of the darkness it’s set against. And dormant seeds that were sown centuries before can suddenly spring to life.

Do you have one of those stories, where you’ve seen God at work in unexpected places? I’d love to hear examples of God revealing a little spark of faith where we’d never expect it. Leave me a comment with your story.

Elijah series:

Unexpected testing

Posted on by
3

In my last post I looked at the remarkable sources of God’s provision for the prophet Elijah: God mobilizes scavengers, multiplies the assets of the poor and enables the marginalized to contribute. In doing so, God challenges the assumptions and mental blocks of the privileged and presumptive sources of provision—people like me. In fact, the story is told in a way I can identify with, because its focus is Elijah.

However, even as God is working his purposes in Elijah’s life, he’s also working in the widow’s life. He yearns for her to know him, and he’s using Elijah to bring about his purposes for her. The widow’s version of this story might read a lot differently, but there’s not much detail on which to build that retelling. So we try to read into the woman’s actions and the small handful of words captured in this story.

For instance, I would like to know if, when she enters the scene, she already has a spark of faith. Did God reveal in some way, prior to her meeting Elijah, his plan and calling to her? Even as she has lived on the edges of Israel’s border, has she been seeking Israel’s God? I also wonder how this widow responds to God’s daily miracle. 

In the previous act of this story (1 Ki 17:8-16), this widow took a leap of faith to trust the man of God. In this final act (1 Ki 17:17-24), she faces a crisis of faith. Just as things are starting to look hopeful, her son dies. You’ll recall from the book of Ruth (1:11-13, 4:13-17) that a widow’s only guarantee of future economic and social stability is through a son. Her son continues her husband’s lineage, secures her home and land, and provides for her as she ages.

It’s also a setback for her spiritual journey; it seems to confirm her worst fears that this God is just like all the others.9 For most people in her situation, there is no rags to riches outcome. She may even have been bracing for bad news because it figures, after the series of misfortunes she has experienced. Her words reveal her resentments and core beliefs: she asks Elijah what he has against her, but she’s really asking what God has against her. This loss might not be as painful if her heart hadn’t opened a bit.

It’s interesting that she raises the issue of sin (v18). Romans 5:13 tells us that “sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law” (see also Rom 5:15); therefore, she’s not under the Hebrew Law. However, she understands in some way that she has missed the mark; she’s not in right standing with God. 

In that comment, she reveals that she understands sin has a price. But she also reveals that she was expecting grace, the primary characteristic of Yahweh she has personally experienced so far. In her pain and anger, she reveals a level of conviction and a fragile faith. 

Digging further, history tells us that worship of Baal sometimes required child sacrifice. Now the God of Israel seems to have taken her son. So again, is this God any different? It’s an enormous test of her faith, beyond what many fledgling believers could withstand. 

In fact, this is where Western believers sometimes get tripped up in their faith. Why would God allow this kind of trial when the woman’s faith is so fragile? It’s appalling to read stories like Jesus confronting the rich, young ruler and then watching him walk away (Matt 19:16-22) or offending his followers and chasing away those who weren’t serious (John 6:60-66). Why wouldn’t the God who doesn’t snuff out a smouldering wick or break a bent reed (Is 42:3) shelter this widow’s simple expression of faith until it’s strong enough to withstand a storm? What if her faith breaks? 

Elijah’s response suggests he has the same mindset; he even seems to be having his own crisis of faith. He doesn’t speak to the woman at all: no compassion expressed for her loss, but instead, a brusque, “Give me your son” and a march up the stairs to his room. His prayer reads to me as rather accusatory: God, did you bring tragedy on her? Did you kill the boy? Perhaps he expected his presence in her home to have brought her some kind of covering rather than make her life worse.

The passage says God listens—even to sullen, angry prayers like Elijah’s. Yet, for Elijah, the son’s resurrection was probably more of a relief than a moment of great joy. Maybe the woman’s faith will survive this crisis now.

Don’t miss the amazing faith in Elijah’s prayer; he asks God for something no one had ever dared to dream of before. Up until this moment, death was always the end. We get used to the New Testament stories, but this was the first recorded resurrection in the Bible.

Take a minute to read one of them: Luke 7:11-17. Jesus is traveling in Galilee when he encounters a funeral procession. The only son of a widow has passed away. Jesus raises the young man to life, then gives him to his mother. In this parallel story I see two insights into the Zarephath story.

First, Jesus responds with compassion and cares for the widow before addressing death. The contrast to Elijah’s bedside manner exposes where his response was lacking. Perhaps the difference is simply one of character and personality: Elijah was full of faith, but he was also a flawed individual who was prone to emotional ups and downs. But it also reveals power and knowledge: Jesus knew how the story would end, because even then he had authority over death, while Elijah was pleading for the impossible.

Second, we see the response of the witnesses: fear seizes them and they glorify God. They conclude two things: Jesus is a great prophet, and God has visited his people. The Sidonian widow concludes the same thing about Elijah and God:

  • She says, “Now I know.” She has experienced it herself.
  • She recognizes Elijah as a prophet—his words are truth, and in his mouth are the words of Yahweh.
  • When she identifies Elijah as a man of God, she refers to God as Elohim—the supreme God, the God of gods, the God over Baal.
  • The deeper message is a profession of her belief in God. She no longer refers to Yahweh as Elijah’s God, as she had in v12. God has visited her.

In God’s miraculous resurrection of her son, she encounters even greater power and even greater grace than she has been experiencing on a daily basis.

So why does God give her such an extreme test? I believe he knows that her faith can’t stay in its current condition. Elijah will soon be leaving, and she needs to be able to stand on her own feet. It is time for her to reach a decision about whether she and her household will believe, and serve the Lord (Josh 24:15).

I started this series researching to see how non-Westerners read this chapter. The North American approach would likely be to coddle such fragile faith by protecting the seedling, growing it carefully and guarding it from any real test in the early years. Many in the East and the South would say that’s unrealistic and point out that too much water or protection of a plant leads to shallow roots. Years later, when the plant is growing and should be mature, it is actually still fragile because of its roots. They would expect sacrifice, suffering and danger to come for a new believer, and rapid root growth is necessary for resilience.

We don’t know what happens with this woman after this. But her story can’t be looked at in isolation. Her line will now continue, and when seeds of faith are planted, you never know when they might pop back up again. We’ll look at that in our final post in the series.

References (intentionally seeking non-Western views)

9. Tse, Justin. “Elijah.” (Hong Kong) A Sermon for Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Proper 5. Patheos. 27 July 2016. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/ecperson/2013/06/10/preaching-elijah/

Elijah series:

Unexpected provision

Posted on by
3

In my previous post, I looked at Elijah’s preparation for this moment when God will bring three people together to provide for each others’ needs. Read along in 1 Kings 17:7-16.

Now we meet a Sidonian mother who is the very picture of dependency. This woman might be described as “house poor”: living in a 2-storey house big enough for a guest room4 in a resort town suggests she may once have had a better life.5 She lives in a paternalistic society, where widows lack legal rights outside of bearing a son.3 The book of Ruth gives us a glimpse of the life of a couple of widows, and the bitterness Naomi felt from the way her life turned out (Ruth 1). On top of that, the way she sees the world is likely framed by a narrative like this one: her people have been marginalized for centuries; Joshua, David and Solomon were not able to dislodge them from their land,5 and they have a long history of worshiping a god who angers Yahweh. So she’s stigmatized and oppressed by Elijah’s people, and she’s caught downstream from a political and religious battle between those in power.

Think of all the minoritized demographics all wrapped up in this one woman! Take a minute to absorb the context and put yourself in her shoes. Feel her hunger pangs and her concern for her son. And consider why she’s outside the gate of the city gathering sticks. 

It’s remarkable to think about the sources God summons to meet Elijah’s needs. So often we form our own idea of how God will provide, or we even strategize as if God needs our suggestions. But the God described as owning the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps 50:10) shows here that he can mobilize that provision through the most unexpected conduits. As Jesus asks rhetorically (Luke 4:25-26), why would God choose this woman of all possible providers for Elijah? If it had to be a widow, there were Jewish widows and even wealthy widows. Everything is upside down from our expectations.

How would this widow in a Baal-worshipping region respond to God’s command? We know the birds will obey their Creator, but will she? Funny enough, the text doesn’t tell us whether God briefed her on her role. It’s difficult to interpret in the brief clips of conversation whether she was sarcastic or resentful or open. I’ve tried reading them with different tones of voice.

Her provision starts with hospitality for the weary prophet. When Elijah comes to her, she welcomes him… to some degree. To western ears, his requests seem rude.4 For instance, his first request for water is basic, but note that he’s asking for the very resource that he’s responsible for making rare and overpriced! To eastern ears, her response is rude. She skips a number of steps of hospitality expected in that culture—such as inviting him to rest or giving him water to wash his feet after his journey—some of which were affordable even to one living at her level of poverty.5

Elijah’s requests come with a promise (v14), but they’re a big leap of faith for this woman: a third of her last meal, and he must have the first portion. Why should she believe the promise of the God of Israel, a foreign deity? Perhaps it’s desperation that forces her to place her trust in the word of “Yahweh-is-God.” Joseph Bayode observes about this decision point6:

She had every reason to say no. She was desperate. She had a child to protect. She had only enough for one last supper and a slow, sorrowful death. But instead of resisting, she obeyed. She gave out of her lack, not her abundance. And in that moment, her faith triggered divine provision.

The Sidonian widow has to make two leaps: Elijah’s God can be her provider, but he also intends for her to be a provider.7 What mental and cultural barriers does the Sidonian widow overcome to say yes? 

Perhaps more relevant to us, what mental and cultural barriers does Elijah have to overcome to receive God’s provision from this woman? What does this man of power, access and comparative wealth have to learn in order to receive help?

I’m struck by the empathy required in God’s solution. First, Elijah becomes equal with the woman and her son. The Old Testament regularly lumps foreigners, the fatherless and widows as similar vulnerable populations under legal protection4 (see examples such as Dt 10:18-19 and 24:17-21). For all the power, influence and relative wealth Elijah possesses, he is no different from her.

Second, the next weeks and years ahead are a matter of daily faith and struggle, because God doesn’t provide all at once. Oil and flour that never run dry are not a source of wealth building, but a means of daily subsistence requiring continued faith. 

The three have to negotiate a co-existence. In order for Elijah’s needs to be met, God forces him to wade into the woman’s world of poverty—not aloof or indifferent, but showing concern about her daily need.8 Digging out of a poverty cycle is not a quick or easy thing. He has to walk with her as she wrestles free of the multiple levels of material, mental, emotional and spiritual poverty. He is an expression of Immanuel—God with us—to this woman.

It leaves me wondering: What mental blocks do we need to challenge as we think about sources of provision? What if God wants to move his Church away from an unhealthy dependence on Western funding? And what if he wants to challenge our view of wealth as a prerequisite for provision. It’s counter-intuitive, but God has all the resources, and sometimes he directs them through surprising conduits.

This story shows that everyone can participate in his mission. There’s a great example in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, when the first-generation Macedonian churches, in their poverty and youthful passion, begged for the privilege of contributing to God’s work. God has a very different view of assets than we do. He often starts with what’s in our hands, as he did with Moses and his staff (Ex 4:2). And as he does here with the flour and oil. He’s the originator of the asset-based-development strategy. 

For that matter, what about sources of truth and sources of authority? We’re living in a day when the center of Christianity has moved outside the West. The centers of influence for the global Church are now in places with a much younger Church. Are we willing to receive calls to Biblical orthodoxy from places like Rwanda and Ghana? Are we willing to be challenged by the development of Indigenous theology coming out of Brazil and Indonesia?

As leaders, it’s a good time to re-orient our posture toward this new era for the Church. Ask yourself: what mental barriers you need to break in order to be ready for what God wants to do?

Reference (intentionally seeking non-Western views)
3. Seifert, Marlon. (Brazil)
4. van der Walt, J.S. (South Africa)
5. Gafney, Wil. (U.S., African American) “Hermeneutics of Reversal: Widow of Zarephath.” Womanists Wading in the Word. 18 March 2022. https://www.wilgafney.com/2022/03/18/hermeneutics-of-reversal-widow-of-zarephath/
6. Bayode, Joseph. (Nigeria) “The Widow of Zarephath.” Medium. 4 May 2025  https://medium.com/@JosephBayode/the-widow-of-zarephath-38c8957dc5a2
7. Claassens, Juliana. (South Africa) “Commentary on 1 Kings 17:8-16.” Working Preacher. 8 Nov 2009. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-32-2/commentary-on-1-kings-178-16-3
8. Hunter, Max. (U.S., African American) “Racial Reconciliation in the New Creation: 1 Kings 17.”The Center for Biblical and Theological Education, Seattle Pacific University. August 2014. https://spu.edu/lectio/racial-reconciliation-in-the-new-creation/

Elijah series:

Unexpected preparation

Posted on by
3

I’ve been studying how God provides for his mission—sometimes surprising the recipient and the provider of that resource. There are few more surprising examples than one that Jesus comments on when trying to make a point to the Jewish leaders of his day:

There were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon (Luke 4:25-26).

As I studied the story he’s referring to, in 1 Kings 17, I had to set aside my Sunday School understanding of the story. Reading it through a traditional Western lens wasn’t much better, so I intentionally sought other perspectives—especially sources in Africa and Asia, as you can see in my reference list. Many are not from my denominational segment, and I admit I’m not entirely comfortable with all that these authors write. But their perspective helped challenge my assumptions and fill in what I might be missing from my cultural lens.

Let me start with a leadership principle: Leaders sometimes fail to think of those who live downstream from their decisions or actions. 1 Kings 17 is set in a larger context, as the end of chapter 16 begins to explain. Queen Jezebel and King Ahab are leading the people of Israel to worship a god from the nearby land of Sidon, the god of rain and harvest: Baal. God’s intent to expose Baal’s actual powerlessness leads to a political and religious battle between representatives of God and Baal. But rather than focusing on those in power, this passage zooms in on the story of two people caught downstream from that battle: Elijah, the unwitting victim of his own action, and a widow and mother caught in the crossfire. So the story selection itself lifts up the weak and marginalized, which was part of Jesus’ point as well.

If you are familiar with the prophet Elijah, you likely picture characteristics like moodiness, fears, inspiring faith, living in the moment, and a sense of theatre. But all the character development in this story takes place along the way; he gets no introduction. So I want to encourage you to look at the chapter with fresh eyes. The reason we know Elijah is a prophet is because of his name and his first words. For a Jewish reader, the story starts this way:

Now Yahweh-is-God… said to Ahab, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.” 

Yes, Elijah’s name gives away his purpose. God intends to show that he is above all other gods by attacking the source of Baal’s power and identity; he will withhold rain. 

Immediately after this proclamation, God tells his man to run and hide, and then offers a series of provisions to get him through the next 42 months. God has an intentional season of preparation in mind. First, he offers the prophet a hiding spot by a brook (v5) in the same watershed as Israel. There Elijah discovers a ready supply of food that Jews were expressly forbidden to eat. For a Jew, the food itself and the means of delivery matter. Of all birds, a raven will make him unclean1 (Lev. 11:15), and the food any scavenger delivers would have unknown origins or preparation methods. So the first thing to consider: What did it take for a kosher Israelite to receive food from a scavenger?

For that matter, why would the God who gave the Law intentionally ask Elijah to defy the Law? He does the same with the apostle Peter in Acts 10, and that gives us a clue: God prepares both men ahead of time for ministering in a foreign environment. They could never engage cross-culturally if they were sticklers who couldn’t even set foot in a Gentile house or eat their food.2 

There’s another lesson for Elijah during this period. He can’t look too far ahead, because relying on a brook during a drought is a losing proposition. He has put all of his trust in God, and God seems to have only anticipated some months of provision.3 Elijah watches the water level drop day by day, not knowing how God will meet his needs in the future. 

Having learned the life of a fugitive and daily dependence on God4, Elijah is now ready for the mission God is sending him on. That’s right: God’s goal isn’t just to meet Elijah’s needs while he waits for Jezebel and Ahab to soften; God intends to use him as a cross-cultural missionary, to meet the needs of someone else hurt by the drought and famine.

Only after the brook dries up does God reveal phase 2 of his plan. God’s solution for his prophet’s needs means sending Elijah:

  • Over 75 miles away, on the opposite fringe of Ahab’s kingdom, a journey either through the land where there’s a warrant out on him, or the long way around it. Either one fraught with danger.
  • Into the heart of Baal-worshiping Sidon, the land ruled by Jezebel’s father (16:31, 17:9). This location was no less safe for Elijah than staying in Israel.
  • To a widow preparing her last meal before giving up.

Can you feel the objections and questions rising in Elijah? Before experiencing and receiving God’s provision, he has to overcome his own mental blocks. 

Have you ever gone through a season that in retrospect, seems designed to break your previous patterns of understanding? God can use failure to do that. Or a cross-cultural clash. Or a crisis. It’s painful in the moment, but God’s plan for your next phase wouldn’t be possible without it. For Elijah, it’s going to get even more challenging.

References (intentionally seeking non-Western views)
1. Ruolngul, James R. (India) “The Wisdom of God in His Providence.” Independent Church of India. 11 November 2022. https://www.ici.net.in/the-wisdom-of-god-in-his-providence/
2. Compare the centurions in Mathew 8:8 and Acts 10:24-26, for example.
3. Seifert, Marlon. (Brazil) “Elijah and The Widow.” Sermon. 2 Oct 2025. https://prmarlon.com/blog-2/elijah-and-the-widow
4. van der Walt, J.S. (South Africa) “The recipient becoming a participant and the participant becoming a recipient: A strange encounter in 1 Kings 17 with a not so strange outcome.” Acta Theologica, University of the Free State. 10 December 2021. https://scielo.org.za/pdf/at/v41s32/13.pdf. 
Quoting Wyatt, Stephanie. (South Africa) “Jezebel, Elijah, and the Widow of Zarephath: A Ménage à Trois that Estranges the Holy and Makes the Holy the Strange.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. SAGE Publications. 15 May 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089212438020

Elijah series: